Rs. 20 lakhs saddled on Doctors and Hospitals for making them aware what is humanity and human touch..."

Case Details :
Mr. Vijay Kumar V/s. Dr. Sonia Malik, Dr. Kavita Katoch & Holy Angel Hospital, New Delhi.

Case No.09/2011, decided on 22/01/2019.
By : Hon. Anil Shrivastava
Judgment Link :
://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=8%2F0%2FCC%2F11%2F9&dtofhearing=2019-01-15

Facts in short :
1. The Complainant Husband, who lost his beloved wife at the time of her Delivery, filed the compliant for claiming Rs.82,00,000/- as compensation.

2. It was contended in the compliant that deceased patient was diagnosed with 2 fibroids and after consulting the Doctors she was advised to get admitted in the Opponent- Hospital, which is well equipped with modern facilities. 

3. On 08/07/2009, the Complainant and his wife reached the Hospital, but where shocked to see that there was no Doctor available. The Nurse gave some medicines and asked the Complainant to bring medicines, cotton, syringes etc. After 15-20 minutes the patient started having labor pains and after some time she started bleeding. As Dr. Sonia was not available, Dr. KAvita was advised to shift the patient to Operation Theater. The Complainant was asked to bring 2 units of Blood.  It was alleged that there was no Anesthetists available.

4. It was further alleged that the Blood Transfusion was not done in time and crucial time was wasted in arranging the Blood. It was alleged that the main treating Doctor was not available and the patient was operated by another Doctor who had no knowledge of previous history of the patient. As the condition of the patient was deteriorated, the Hospital asked the Complainant to shift to Higher Center and accordingly she was shifted to Fortis Hospital, but she could not be saved though she delivered a baby. 

5. The Complainant also approached Hon. Delhi High Court and as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, Delhi Medical Council furnished its expert report thereby exonerating the Opponents, but observed that the treatment given was without proper knowledge of history and thus this amounts to negligence. 

Defense of Doctors.
1. The Doctors and Hospitals denied all the allegations of Negligence. 

2. It was alleged that they did everything to save the patient as per standard protocol and this has been observed by one of the expert Dr. Manju Puri.  

3. They also sought the Opinion of Delhi Medical Council.

Held :

The Judgment starts with the following observations of NCDRC in the case of Rashmi Handa vs. OTIS Elevation India Company Ltd.
“Fame and power driven by the ulterior motive of greed leads to devastation.  To us here, death is the most terrible thing, we know.  We understand death far the first time when he (death) put its hand upon one whom we love”.

1. After hearing of both the parties and considering the documents on records and various judgments of Hon. Apex Court and Hon. NCDRC, the Delhi State Commission allowed the Compliant but to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- from Rs.82,00,000/-. 

2. It was observed that the Complainant and his Wife approached the Opponent Hospital believing that it was well equipped, but later on it was found that the facilities were lacking.

3. It was observed that the patient was unattended by the Doctors, in Operation thereafter there was no Anesthetists in Operation Theater. There was no facility available for Blood Transfusion and delay in blood arrangements further deteriorated the condition of the patient.  It was also observed that there was no infrastructure to handle complicated and emergency situations. 

4. The Commission awarded Rs.20 lakhs compensation and  held the Hospital vicariously liable to pay the compensation & it was observed that :
"28.......This may serve the purpose of bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the hospitals for providing service to the human beings as human beings. Human touch is necessary; that is their code of conduct; that is their duty and that is what is required to be implemented."

Important case indeed. It is impossible to fathom the amount of loss one suffers on account of sudden and untimely death of the near and dear one. In the instant case it appears that there was no proper treatment given to the patient nor there was required facilities available in the Hospital. 
Thus its a lesson for other Doctors and Hospital. There is no alternative  to see that the Hospital is equipped with minimum required equipments. To see the patient in time and to upgrade oneself with the history of the patient are the basic things that are expected from Doctors. The patients want interaction with Doctors, they are happy if the Doctors have few words with them and that give them confidence and it may save future unpleasant actions like violence against Doctors.
No doubt most of the Doctors and Hospitals have human touch for the patients and they do treat patients as human beings. 

Thanks and Regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune. © 

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

    A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor refused t
    Read more

    A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

     The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips
    Read more

    "MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

    "MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno
    Read more